Re: A better way then just "$" -- !
- Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> Sep 22, 2003
- 370 views
I'll post this again since it's now over 24 hours and not appeared: On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 05:56:43 +0000, Al Getz <Xaxo at aol.com> wrote: >If there is a number 'before' AND 'after' the $, then > >s=3D{1,2,3,4,5,6,7} > >s=3Ds[2$6] -- {1,2,6,7} --note the '6' names the element itself here. Hmm. consider the common expression: s=3Ds[1..idx-1]&s[idx+1..length(s)] To represent that in the above notation, you'd need eg: s[(idx-1)$(idx+1)] Doesn't really fly, does it? However, I did get to think what would be the easiest way to express this common idiom and came up with: x[not idx] or x[not 3..5] which is a lot neater than x[1..idx-1]&s[idx+1..length(x)] or even x[1..2]&[6..$] Regards, Pete